With A Rod close to signing with the Yankees and the Angels & Dodgers looking for a 3B. Maybe KW can send Garland & Crede to the Dodgers for Kemp and Furcal or to the Angels for Wood, Kendrick and Santana...

soxfan26

11-14-2007, 08:45 PM

With A Rod close to signing with the Yankees and the Angels & Dodgers looking for a 3B. Maybe KW can send Garland & Crede to the Dodgers for Kemp and Furcal or to the Angels for Wood, Kendrick and Santana...

Wood, Kendrick and Santana sound OK, but I would only pull the trigger if they tossed in Weaver and K-Rod.

:rolleyes:

Daver

11-14-2007, 08:52 PM

I imagine teams will line up and draw numbers for the chance to trade for a third baseman that has not played a single game coming off back surgery.

upperdeckusc

11-14-2007, 09:00 PM

With A Rod close to signing with the Yankees and the Angels & Dodgers looking for a 3B. Maybe KW can send Garland & Crede to the Dodgers for Kemp and Furcal or to the Angels for Wood, Kendrick and Santana...

the angels dont even wanna give up kendrick for miguel cabrera. bottom line, he isnt going anywhere. send garland to anaheim for aybar (not wood, he's a minor league josh fields, and thats not what our team needs) and 2 arms whether its MLB bullpen guys or minor league arms, and trade crede for a bullpen guy. just get something for them while you can because they ARE going to free agency. they aren't resigning.

DickAllen72

11-14-2007, 09:02 PM

If the Angels were willing to take a chance on Crede I'd try to get either Figgins or Cabrera from them. We'd have to throw in a prospect or two.

Martinigirl

11-14-2007, 09:35 PM

I imagine teams will line up and draw numbers for the chance to trade for a third baseman that has not played a single game coming off back surgery.

This is exactly what I think when the Crede trade rumors come up. Who is going to trade known commodities for a player that had season ending back surgery. 2005/6 Joe was great, but there is no guarantee he is ever going to be that player again, and GMs know that.

Brian26

11-14-2007, 11:28 PM

or to the Angels for Wood, Kendrick and Santana...

Kendrick is the guy that looks to be really good, but I doubt the Angels would part with their possible future middle infield for one year each of Garland and Crede.

UserNameBlank

11-15-2007, 01:28 AM

the angels dont even wanna give up kendrick for miguel cabrera. bottom line, he isnt going anywhere. send garland to anaheim for aybar (not wood, he's a minor league josh fields, and thats not what our team needs) and 2 arms whether its MLB bullpen guys or minor league arms, and trade crede for a bullpen guy. just get something for them while you can because they ARE going to free agency. they aren't resigning.
You'd give up Garland for a weak hitting defense-first SS and a couple relievers? What would be the point of trading him then? Either get a good prospect or a useful veteran for your 200IP+ no. 3 starter or don't trade him at all.

And there is no way in hell the Sox would rather have Aybar than Wood. Yeah, the last thing we need is another Josh Fields. The last thing we need is another useful young player. Right. Aybar is fast, so lets just get more fast guys, 'cause speed always wins.

I have no problem with Aybar over Uribe as any change in direction at SS would be refreshing at this point, but he's not worth one of our best trading chips. If he continues to hit .239/.274/.295 at the Major League level like he has in his first 246 PA, then we'll be able to get him for next to nothing because he won't be more than a bench player. Besides, when Juan is playing somewhat close to the level he's capable of playing, he's much better than Aybar anyway.

Meanwhile, Brandon Wood is a 22 year old with a 107 career minor league home runs who just posted a .272/.338/.497 line in Triple A last year. The only reason his stock has fallen is because he hit 43 HRs in High A as a 20 year old with a 1.055 OPS as a freaking SS. It doesn't take much for someones stock to fall after posting numbers like that. What was he supposed to do? Hit another 43 last year? And we're not getting Wood for Garland, btw. Maybe we can if the Angels are stupid, but I doubt it.

If Garland doesn't re-sign, the Sox can still move him for something valuable around the deadline if they are out of it, or at least they can get a draft pick.

The only way the Sox should trade Crede before ST is if they are totally committed to Josh Fields at 3B and want him to prepare for that now. Otherwise it makes sense to trade Crede once he has shown he's healthy enough to play. The Sox sound like they want to go for it again next year, so I think the likeliest scenario is Crede at 3B and Fields in LF, if he's not traded. But I hope Fields isn't traded, even though he sucks, because I like him.

BTW, Fields struck out in roughly 1/3 of his AB's last year in the Majors, which Jim Thome has also done several times in his best years, and of course it is common knowledge that Jim Thome sucks too. The team doesn't need him. And Josh was on pace to hit 31 HRs as a rookie in 500 ABs, and combined with Charlotte he hit 33 after a horrible start. Also, his BB total increased from previous years despite facing MLB pitching for basically the first time (since his callup in 2006 wasn't much of anything, only 20 AB). And this was all while having a nagging injury and with pitchers attacking him up and in over and over. Josh is going to learn at the plate and he'll start to lay off stuff up and in more. He'll get IBB and take more walks as a whole, because pitchers aren't exactly going to be dying to face a future 40HR/season hitter. So, overall I think theres some hope that maybe Josh won't suck in the future.

mcp5185

11-15-2007, 06:12 AM

What about something like Garland and Crede for Figgins, Shields, and Wood. It helps the bullpen and fills the leadoff role. We might have to toss in a prospect or two, but I think it would be worth it.

Then we sign Hunter/Rowand to fill CF. As far as the rotation goes we could replace Garland with one of our prospects, or trade some prospects to try and acquire another starter.

That's a lineup good enough for .500 and third place in the A.L. Central.

Sargeant79

11-15-2007, 08:59 AM

What about something like Garland and Crede for Figgins, Shields, and Wood. It helps the bullpen and fills the leadoff role. We might have to toss in a prospect or two, but I think it would be worth it.

It would be worth it on our end, by why would the Angels do that?

upperdeckusc

11-15-2007, 09:07 AM

no way crede and garland are traded in the same deal. nobody will give up a huge package for 2 players in return that are in their contract yrs. just wont happen, cuz we'd definitely be asking for too much in return for the other team's liking.

Zisk77

11-15-2007, 10:24 AM

If you want value for Crede in a trade you hope he does well playing for us and trade him at the dealine to a team that is desperate for a 3b.

FedEx227

11-15-2007, 10:34 AM

That's a lineup good enough for .500 and third place in the A.L. Central.

Wow. Look out. Especially remember this was Dye coming off crappy seasons, Iguchi who was unknown, Crede who was still trash.

You never know until the season starts.

upperdeckusc

11-15-2007, 10:49 AM

If you want value for Crede in a trade you hope he does well playing for us and trade him at the dealine to a team that is desperate for a 3b.

they've said the fields experiment in LF is done. so if crede plays the whole 1st half at 3b, where's fields? is there enough at bats for him to platoon with thome and give crede days off? do we wanna pay thome 13 mil to only hit against righties? are we getting a LF leadoff hitter then to make all this happen? would that be owens if we get hunter in CF? ahhhhhhhhhh

Tragg

11-15-2007, 11:01 AM

the angels dont even wanna give up kendrick for miguel cabrera. bottom line, he isnt going anywhere. send garland to anaheim for aybar (not wood, he's a minor league josh fields, and thats not what our team needs) and 2 arms whether its MLB bullpen guys or minor league arms, and trade crede for a bullpen guy. just get something for them while you can because they ARE going to free agency. they aren't resigning.
That's just giving them away and selling extremely low. Ridiculous.

doublem23

11-15-2007, 11:14 AM

That's just giving them away and selling extremely low. Ridiculous.

Don't you know we're just Sox fans and we're overvalueing our own players? I mean, who would REALLY want a guy like Jon Garland, whose made 30 starts every year since 2002 and tossed 200 innings every year since 2004?

There's so much pitching out there, we'd be lucky to get a used jock strap and a melted bag of ice for him.

spiffie

11-15-2007, 11:16 AM

Don't you know we're just Sox fans and we're overvalueing our own players? I mean, who would REALLY want a guy like Jon Garland, whose made 30 starts every year since 2002 and tossed 200 innings every year since 2004?

There's so much pitching out there, we'd be lucky to get a used jock strap and a melted bag of ice for him.
Wait, I thought I was told on this site that Jon Garland is barely a #5 starter, and that his production is worth no more than $5 million a year in this market.

balke

11-15-2007, 11:16 AM

Yes I could see Crede being dealt to those teams. I think if he packaged him with Garland, then you'd be seeing Chone Figgins in Chicago. I think it could happen, but I don't think it will.

upperdeckusc

11-15-2007, 11:24 AM

Don't you know we're just Sox fans and we're overvalueing our own players? I mean, who would REALLY want a guy like Jon Garland, whose made 30 starts every year since 2002 and tossed 200 innings every year since 2004?

There's so much pitching out there, we'd be lucky to get a used jock strap and a melted bag of ice for him.

a young SS and 2 arms for garland. thats not a good package? what do YOU want for garland? 30 starts and 200 innings, ok, cool. he still allows alotta hits and has mid-high 4's era every year. this is his contract year. you are not going to get the farm for this guy when he's going to test free agency and only be with a team for a year. so, what ideal package do you want for garland this offseason in his contract yr? or should we keep him and settle for a draft pick thats not going to be in the top 15. i dont even think garland is a type A FA. whatever your smoking, pass it this way.

upperdeckusc

11-15-2007, 11:25 AM

That's just giving them away and selling extremely low. Ridiculous.
crede, maybe. garland, not at all...

doublem23

11-15-2007, 11:26 AM

Wait, I thought I was told on this site that Jon Garland is barely a #5 starter, and that his production is worth no more than $5 million a year in this market.

I think the general consensus around here is that Garland is no better than a 5th man out of the bullpen. Seriously, what team could find room for a 28-year-old pitcher, with an impeccable track record of health, several years of MLB experience under his belt, and a career ERA of 4.41 and nearly 100 wins? You can't throw a rock without hitting a starter like that.

UserNameBlank

11-15-2007, 11:29 AM

Don't you know we're just Sox fans and we're overvalueing our own players? I mean, who would REALLY want a guy like Jon Garland, whose made 30 starts every year since 2002 and tossed 200 innings every year since 2004?

There's so much pitching out there, we'd be lucky to get a used jock strap and a melted bag of ice for him.

:gulp:

a young SS and 2 arms for garland. thats not a good package? what do YOU want for garland? 30 starts and 200 innings, ok, cool. he still allows alotta hits and has mid-high 4's era every year. this is his contract year. you are not going to get the farm for this guy when he's going to test free agency and only be with a team for a year. so, what ideal package do you want for garland this offseason in his contract yr? or should we keep him and settle for a draft pick thats not going to be in the top 15. i dont even think garland is a type A FA. whatever your smoking, pass it this way.

That's a terrible, terrible package. You don't need to smoke anymore.

spiffie

11-15-2007, 11:30 AM

I think the general consensus around here is that Garland is no better than a 5th man out of the bullpen. Seriously, what team could find room for a 28-year-old pitcher, with an impeccable track record of health, several years of MLB experience under his belt, and a career ERA of 4.41 and nearly 100 wins? You can't throw a rock without hitting a starter like that.
And hey, his ERA the last 3 years is a miserable 4.08.

He might be decent in the rotation at Birmingham. Maybe.

Domeshot17

11-15-2007, 11:39 AM

And hey, his ERA the last 3 years is a miserable 4.08.

He might be decent in the rotation at Birmingham. Maybe.

You are right Spiffie, why pay 10 mil for Josh Beckett or 11 for Javy or 12 for Cris Carpenter (albiet coming off Arm Surgery) when we can pay 15 mil for JON GARLAND.

No one said Garland isn't a good pitcher, but hes not a front line starter and I still don't agree with paying him like one.

Ive said it before, I think he is worth the Javy deal, 3-4 years at 9-11 per. Anything else just isn't worth it. Not if Burls is making 14 no way should Garland make the same or even more than him.

russ99

11-15-2007, 11:47 AM

That's a lineup good enough for .500 and third place in the A.L. Central.

Disagree completely. That looks pretty good to me, especially if we can deal Thome for a #2 hitting LF (moving Hunter/Rowand down to a better slot as neither is a good #2 hitter and Figgins to 2B) add another starter (Willis for the farm?) and get another set-up/middle relief candidate in too.

UserNameBlank

11-15-2007, 11:53 AM

You are right Spiffie, why pay 10 mil for Josh Beckett or 11 for Javy or 12 for Cris Carpenter (albiet coming off Arm Surgery) when we can pay 15 mil for JON GARLAND.

No one said Garland isn't a good pitcher, but hes not a front line starter and I still don't agree with paying him like one.

Ive said it before, I think he is worth the Javy deal, 3-4 years at 9-11 per. Anything else just isn't worth it. Not if Burls is making 14 no way should Garland make the same or even more than him.
You are comparing apples (Garland near market value) to oranges (better players on below market value contracts).

It's not quite that simple.

You figure, if you want to get one of those players on a below market value contract, you'd have to theoretically trade Garland or the bounty Garland could get you PLUS your own prospects to acquire on of those players.

Would the three or four million you'd be saving be worth dealing a Josh Fields, who can hit like a $10mil/year player at league minimum?

If you sign players off the open market you are spending more money but you're keeping your prospects. Sometimes you forfeit draft picks, but the draft picks aren't typically worth your own top prospects who have already succeeded at that level.

spiffie

11-15-2007, 12:04 PM

You are right Spiffie, why pay 10 mil for Josh Beckett or 11 for Javy or 12 for Cris Carpenter (albiet coming off Arm Surgery) when we can pay 15 mil for JON GARLAND.

No one said Garland isn't a good pitcher, but hes not a front line starter and I still don't agree with paying him like one.

Ive said it before, I think he is worth the Javy deal, 3-4 years at 9-11 per. Anything else just isn't worth it. Not if Burls is making 14 no way should Garland make the same or even more than him.
You're right.

I assume then the market value for a top-flight closer is $400,000 or so? After all, that's what Bobby Jenks makes.

Beckett was not yet at his FA point, and he had an injury history. Having his last arb years bought out for a guaranteed $30 million payday was a gamble. Think if he stays healthy that he'll be playing in 2011 for $10 million a year?

Javy signed an extension after a 3 year stretch in which his ERA was 4.72. He was pretty much one more season away from becoming Kris Benson or Jason Marquis. Yes, he rebounded nicely last year, for his first sub-4.40 ERA season since there was still a major league team in Montreal.

FYI, Carpenter's deal is not as good as you make it out to be. Yes, he got 8.5 this year, and will be getting 10.5 next year. After that though he makes:
2009 - 14 million
2010 - 14.5 million
2011 - 15 million
2012 - 15 million (club option)
So they're on the hook for $54 million more over the next 4 years for a guy who has missed 3 of the last 6 seasons with injuries.

You figure, if you want to get one of those players on a below market value contract, you'd have to theoretically trade Garland or the bounty Garland could get you PLUS your own prospects to acquire on of those players.

Would the three or four million you'd be saving be worth dealing a Josh Fields, who can hit like a $10mil/year player at league minimum?

If you sign players off the open market you are spending more money but you're keeping your prospects. Sometimes you forfeit draft picks, but the draft picks aren't typically worth your own top prospects who have already succeeded at that level.

That was kind of my point, guys take less to stay home. Zambrano took less (although still got paid), Buehrle took wayyyyyy less, Carpenter took a lot less, Beckett took less (even though he was still kind of a question mark).

That is my point, if Garland wants to make 15-17 on the market, he will because some idiot team will pay him. Is he worth it? No more than Zito and Zito isn't worth anywhere CLOSE to that deal. Garland realistically is worth 9-11 maybe 12 mil per, and if that is what he is willing to sign keep him, hes a great 3 or 4 man, we won the world series with him as our 4 for our reason. But I still wouldn't give him 15 mil because someone else desperate will

spiffie

11-15-2007, 12:31 PM

That was kind of my point, guys take less to stay home. Zambrano took less (although still got paid), Buehrle took wayyyyyy less, Carpenter took a lot less, Beckett took less (even though he was still kind of a question mark).

That is my point, if Garland wants to make 15-17 on the market, he will because some idiot team will pay him. Is he worth it? No more than Zito and Zito isn't worth anywhere CLOSE to that deal. Garland realistically is worth 9-11 maybe 12 mil per, and if that is what he is willing to sign keep him, hes a great 3 or 4 man, we won the world series with him as our 4 for our reason. But I still wouldn't give him 15 mil because someone else desperate will
If someone gives Jon Garland 17 million a year I will eat a bug. Not just a fruit fly or something like that, but a freaking praying mantis or some other giant one.

In the current market I would gladly pay him 12 million a year. I agree, he isn't worth at much as Buehrle, and I doubt he gets paid as much as him. He might get longer on the open market, but doubtful he gets 15 million or more.

upperdeckusc

11-15-2007, 01:22 PM

:gulp:

That's a terrible, terrible package. You don't need to smoke anymore.

then, if you were to trade garland, what would you want in return? what type/kinds of players. dont be afraid to throw in actually names of players. lets see how highly you think of garland and his trade value in his contract year....

SBSoxFan

11-15-2007, 01:55 PM

If someone gives Jon Garland 17 million a year I will eat a bug. Not just a fruit fly or something like that, but a freaking praying mantis or some other giant one.

:rolling:

How about this guy?

http://www.anthonyzierhut.com/blog/jackHoldingWaterbug.jpg

spiffie

11-15-2007, 01:59 PM

:rolling:

How about this guy?

http://www.anthonyzierhut.com/blog/jackHoldingWaterbug.jpg
If someone gives Jon Garland an average of 17 million a year for a contract this coming offseason, I'll melt some damn cheese over that bad boy, put it on a bun, and chow the hell down.

doublem23

11-15-2007, 02:17 PM

I don't even want to know what the **** that is.

UserNameBlank

11-15-2007, 02:42 PM

then, if you were to trade garland, what would you want in return? what type/kinds of players. dont be afraid to throw in actually names of players. lets see how highly you think of garland and his trade value in his contract year....
Well, for Garland first of all I wouldn't take anything less than at least one A-, B+ type prospect. I'd prefer a corner OF with power potential. Wladimir Balentien was mentioned before during the trade deadline but I don't know how likely that would be considering Jose Guillen is leaving them and the Mariners may have to start both Jones and Balentien if they plan on moving Ibanez to DH or dumping Sexson and moving Ibanez to 1B. I don't know what Seattle is planning or if they'd be interested, but that's the type of player we should target.

There are all kinds of rumors about aces and potential aces being traded, but I'm guessing all these teams are pretty much going to be interested in the Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox top prospects. I don't see the Angels trading Wood or Kendrick unless its for Miguel Cabrera or an ace like Santana; I don't see the Dodgers dealing all these kids rumored like Kemp, Ethier, Kershaw, Billingsley, etc. unless they get the same type of thing; and I don't see the Red Sox or Yankees trading off Ellsbury, Buccholz, Hughes, Chamberlain, or Cano. I could see them dealing lesser parts like Lester and Ian Kennedy, but I don't think that gets them an ace unless they make up a huge package of players similar to the Randy Johnson to HOU deal or Sexson to MIL deal in the past.

In all, I don't think a lot of big names are going to be moved, and I think there is a greater market for Garland than one would assume. Teams should be willing to pay the price of at least one A- or B+ prospect for him, and it should be someone ready to play now. Either it should be a SP or a position player who can hit, because that is very important, not some future benchwarmer like Erick Aybar. Of course, KW can deal him for veteran pieces, but I disagree with that approach unless the veteran pieces include at least one good position player who is either locked into a contract or an affordable, likely Type A free agent who can be offered arbitration and will net the Sox a draft pick if he goes elsewhere.

Since you're asking me though and I'd prefer the Sox rebuild instead of bringing in more veteran pieces and further delaying an inevitable future rebuilding effort, I'd say either trade Garland for prospects who can help now or attempt to re-sign him with the idea of trading him for greater value after he's locked up.

Domeshot17

11-15-2007, 03:13 PM

Well, for Garland first of all I wouldn't take anything less than at least one A-, B+ type prospect. I'd prefer a corner OF with power potential. Wladimir Balentien was mentioned before during the trade deadline but I don't know how likely that would be considering Jose Guillen is leaving them and the Mariners may have to start both Jones and Balentien if they plan on moving Ibanez to DH or dumping Sexson and moving Ibanez to 1B. I don't know what Seattle is planning or if they'd be interested, but that's the type of player we should target.

There are all kinds of rumors about aces and potential aces being traded, but I'm guessing all these teams are pretty much going to be interested in the Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox top prospects. I don't see the Angels trading Wood or Kendrick unless its for Miguel Cabrera or an ace like Santana; I don't see the Dodgers dealing all these kids rumored like Kemp, Ethier, Kershaw, Billingsley, etc. unless they get the same type of thing; and I don't see the Red Sox or Yankees trading off Ellsbury, Buccholz, Hughes, Chamberlain, or Cano. I could see them dealing lesser parts like Lester and Ian Kennedy, but I don't think that gets them an ace unless they make up a huge package of players similar to the Randy Johnson to HOU deal or Sexson to MIL deal in the past.

In all, I don't think a lot of big names are going to be moved, and I think there is a greater market for Garland than one would assume. Teams should be willing to pay the price of at least one A- or B+ prospect for him, and it should be someone ready to play now. Either it should be a SP or a position player who can hit, because that is very important, not some future benchwarmer like Erick Aybar. Of course, KW can deal him for veteran pieces, but I disagree with that approach unless the veteran pieces include at least one good position player who is either locked into a contract or an affordable, likely Type A free agent who can be offered arbitration and will net the Sox a draft pick if he goes elsewhere.

Since you're asking me though and I'd prefer the Sox rebuild instead of bringing in more veteran pieces and further delaying an inevitable future rebuilding effort, I'd say either trade Garland for prospects who can help now or attempt to re-sign him with the idea of trading him for greater value after he's locked up.

Say we had a chance to do the deal we turned down last year

Hirsch (I believe was Houstons top pitching prospect at the time) Willie Tavares (young lead off hitting CF) and I forget the kids name, basically the gavin floyd clone, top prospect who never put it together and fell to b spec now, would you do it?

UserNameBlank

11-15-2007, 03:21 PM

Say we had a chance to do the deal we turned down last year

Hirsch (I believe was Houstons top pitching prospect at the time) Willie Tavares (young lead off hitting CF) and I forget the kids name, basically the gavin floyd clone, top prospect who never put it together and fell to b spec now, would you do it?
The original deal the Sox turned down because I guess the Astros wouldn't include Pence. If I could be KW, and use my ninjinity to go back in time with a flux capaciter karate kick, I'd offer the 'Stros Garland for Pence straight up. If they would have accepted that deal, I would have done that.

As for the orginal deal with Hirsch, Taveras, and Buccholz, yes, I would have liked it if the Sox had done that because 2007 was a waste and Garland I don't think will be able to net that kind of package now. I'd love to have Taveras because that would mean no future assload of money spent on Hunter or Rowand. Hirsch should be a good starter and Buccholz doesn't matter.

Tragg

11-15-2007, 03:34 PM

As for the orginal deal with Hirsch, Taveras, and Buccholz, yes, I would have liked it if the Sox had done that because 2007 was a waste and Garland I don't think will be able to net that kind of package now. I'd love to have Taveras because that would mean no future assload of money spent on Hunter or Rowand. Hirsch should be a good starter and Buccholz doesn't matter. That's the deal that got the Astros GM fired. And yet, it's only in retrospect tht it looks like it would have been a good deal for Garland. Now Garland >> Jennings, and Jennings didn't have a good year even for him.